“Expelled the movie” is being sued by Yoko Ono, in what may be the best thing she ever did.It seems our less-than-honest friends at Expelled not only lied to viewers about the intellectual viability of an invisible man in the sky, but they also used IMAGINE without permission. Lennon’s song is anything but religious, and Yoko wants to make sure her husband’s name is not used for such tripe.
Yoko Ono is suing the producers of a movie that challenges the concept of Darwinian evolution, saying they used the song “Imagine” without her permission and led the blogosphere to accuse her of “selling out.” …Ono’s lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they could not get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way “Imagine” is listed in the film’s credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song’s use had been approved. “Internet ‘bloggers’ immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of ‘selling out’ by licensing the song to defendants,” says the complaint, filed this week. The lawsuit calls “Imagine” Lennon’s signature song, saying it “has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon.” The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon’s sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
Instead, check out the Forgiving the Franklins Movie, which looks more interestinghttp://www.forgivingthefranklinsthemovie.com/press/atheist.pdf
Certainly: Ambulocetus natans.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#ceta
jcc,
Does the Capybara count? Frogs? Badgers? Alligators? Or are those all too recent?
The vast majority of mammals live on land, but dolphins are an example of mammals that live entirely in the water. There’s strong transitional evidence that these Cetaceans are descended from land creatures that gradually lost the use of their legs:
http://tinyurl.com/3z88kn
Particularly interesting is this critter (quoted from the link above):
This critter seems to be exactly what you were looking for. Here are two more links, it’s pretty fascinating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus_natans
http://tinyurl.com/34mk2q
After that guy, came this (quoted from the first link):
Here’s are another two links about that guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus
http://tinyurl.com/2fmtjc
Do you want more transitional fossils, or do you have enough to work with for now? It’ll only take me 5 more minutes to come up with a few more examples, this wikipedia article is fantastic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
In conjunction with the first link (the TalkOrigins one), it’s very easy to find photos of all these transitional fossils.
Jinx on you, KIP.
alatham:
Can you define ?true? atheism then?
Yes, that?s correct. I?m not in the habit of keeping up with conversations that I?m not involved with in a thread. But for the sake of our discussion, I?ll review your responses.
Ok, then perhaps restating my position may help. Information and/or data can only be discerned as being such by an entity that is capable of comprehending it via its formatting. An intelligent agent is the only known entity to be able to facilitate this comprehension by devising a lexicon for which any sense can be made of its formatting. A cell?s nucleus has the ability to open and ?read? DNA sequences to synthesize protein components but there is no evidence so far that suggests that a cell (or even a proto-cell) was able to devise such a lexicon (and therefore, also its formatting) on its own.
I don?t understand. Are you saying there is no way to formally assert that information ?formatting? exists in DNA?
I believe I said that everything but intelligence has failed to provide the ?causal power? to explain its existence. Intentionally excluding intelligence as a possibility is not being intellectually honest.
I don?t understand how you read that into my response. Acknowledging intelligence as a possibility is not the same as not finding a ?contrary example??the trail is littered with contrary examples that are so far, unsuccessful. If all other hypothesis have proved fruitless, then isn?t it only rational to consider something we do know to be true??again, it?s not an argument from ignorance.
I?d say that the probability of him responding the same way would be directly proportional to how much progress has been made on non-intelligent agents since then.
jcc,
Yes, I agree. I don’t recall ever excluding intelligence as a possibility. But that doesn’t mean that asserting that it’s the only possibility (as you have) is logical.
Well, making that assertion would be difficult, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.
If you’re trying to argue that life came about as a result of the actions of something that was acting out a conscious plan, then you have to find evidence of the plan and find evidence of the consciousness before you can say you have a scientific study.
Consider? Yes. Accept as the truth? No.
Now that I have no idea what we’re supposed to be discussing anymore, would you be so kind as to pose the hypothesis behind ID in an easy to read format?
Something like this will help greatly:
if (result of some experiment == x),
then theory supported.
I still have no idea what kind of experiment you can run that would positively support the existence of a conscious intelligence the created life.
jcc,
No, can you define “true” Christianity?
There’s no need to qualify the word ‘atheist.’ It is simply the disbelief in deities. Just because some people feel more strongly about it and choose to qualify their atheism, does not mean that every atheist needs to qualify it.
Strong atheist, weak atheist, implicit atheist, explicit atheist, agnostic atheist, etc. are all just subsets of atheism. I believe the only statement that all atheists have to agree with is ‘I am not a theist.’ That’s the basic requirement, there is no reason to define it more strongly unless you want to make a straw-man argument.
Pink unicorns may have created DNA.
Thus, pink unicorns did create DNA.
So jcc, what about all of those creatures that scientists refer to as “transitional forms”? How do creationists account for those?
KnowledgeIsPower:
Here, let me provide more definitions (from M-W online):
Please tell me which of these do not follow the commonly understood meaning?
I guess I?m being both; clearly the 6 hours of class work I had in crystallography and mineralogy plus 4 hours of lab work was a waste.
KnowledgeIsPower:
I think we need a few more specimens that are a little more complete before we jump to such a conclusion.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
alatham:
This is why I don?t generally jump in on other?s sub threads. I?d be happy to engage (again) on ?transitional forms? but I think that should be left to a separate thread. I think getting sidetracked off the current topic, after we?ve come so far on it, would be a disservice to us both.
Transitional forms are too far off topic on a thread about evolution? Huh.
That must mean creationists can’t account for them.
alatham:
I don?t recall ever making such an assertion. My point all along is that it?s the only possibility that hasn?t been demonstrated to be wrong so far.
Pardon my incredulity, but isn?t the evidence of the ?plan? a fully functioning, living organism, and the evidence of the consciousness the information that can be found in DNA? Can you refute Henry Quastler?s claim that ?creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity??
Again, how about:
if (storage & retrieval of information can only arise from consciousness) then {
DNA_was_designed = true;
}
Surely humans are capable of devising scientific experiments to test for such.
Look, there are two or three ways you can rationalize the fossil record:
A) Evolution happens and the fossil record documents the incremental changes we expect.
B) Every distinct fossil archetype is a species that has since died out, and the Intelligent Designer (no need to be specific) has continued to replenish the world population with new models (so the Raelians believe).
C) The fossil record was planted (advocated by some YEC’s I’ve had the displeasure of conversing with).
I leave it to you to figure out which one you like.
A self-assembling crystalline structure would fit definition #1 in my opinion. You’re certainly welcome to disagree. Again, if design infers an intelligent agent, why is the theory called Intelligent Design? Is it possible to have non-intelligent designs?
Maybe. When inter-molecular interactions are bound by rules that produce consistent structural formations, would the rules being followed not constitute a plan? If yes, were those plans intelligently designed?
Actually, I kinda agree with jcc. We keep jumping off on tangents.
jcc sez
Which possibilities for information storage in DNA have been “demonstrated to be wrong”?
Citations please.
As you know, proving a negative is impossible. If all ideas were only subject to the criteria that they must be proved wrong before being dismissed, we’d have a lot of problems figuring out what to believe considering that many ideas are mutually exclusive.
The key word being ‘habitually’. I have no need to refute it since the prevalence of support for ID essentially validates it. Is the crystallization of water the creation of new information or merely a reorganization? Have we even agreed on what information means yet?
Didn’t I tell you slime-molds are capable of rudimentary memory?
I’ve got an idea. How ’bout you demonstrate that intelligence *does* create information?
alatham:
Yes. Romans 10:9 ?if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.?
I believe that?s insufficient due to the existence of the concept of deism. Excluding oneself only from theism still leaves the door wide open for a plethora of belief systems outside of atheism.
Atheism is a discrete philosophy which makes no allowance for even the possibility of a deity. So in my opinion, there is a distinct need to qualify it in its application.
jcc sez
Only if one accepts the unsupported assertion that a living organism can arise ONLY by conscious plan. It’s a circular argument.
If I’m not mistaken, using an unproven assertion to prove subsequent assertions is the true definition of “begging the question” (an often misused phrase).
OK this is JCC’s entire argument.
We know that intelligent beings (which are observed to exist -ie us) design some things therefore all things must be designed by some intelligent (but unobserved) being. I wonder if he is even capable of detecting how illogical that is.
JCC
LMAO. Um a … JCC … psst … DEISTS ARE THEISTS.
Yeah, but are we ‘creating information’ or just reorganizing it?
…Yup. That was the basic jist of Alatham’s response.
jcc,
No, the burden of proof is on Quastler.
Ok, any chance someone is going to present one sometime before I die? Best guess is you’ve got about 55 years.
I’m having a hard time believing you actually wrote that. Care to take it back?
Deism is a subset of theism, not atheism. Deism requires a belief in a deity. You can call me an adeist too, if you like. You can also call me an aunicornist and an abrocolliisgoodist.
Since atheism isn’t a belief system, I agree.
Uh huh. Since you’re dictating my own personal position on the matter, do I get to dictate yours?
Theism is a discrete philosophy that makes no allowance for even the slightest concession that the theist is wrong, even in the face of a clear error in definition.
What part of “disbelief” requires the positive assertion that no deity exists?
Have you been so indoctrinated that you can’t even think about this for 2 minutes?
jcc:
No, I object to this restriction of language. Now that we know that design can happen w/o a mind behind it, it?s time to retrofit the word. (Language changes all the time.)
?The ignorant will laugh, but the wise will understand.? ? Lao Tzu.
My ?side? require material physical proof. Nice try, no cigar.
Some folks have been kind enough to provide them for you. Of course, millions can be provided, but you?re too entrenched in your mindset to accept them.
That?s no surprise. Here ya go.
http://tinyurl.com/5lnkgr
Don?t respond @ all, then. Seems like you?re always initiating our?discussions.
Ummm?no I?m not, & no it doesn?t. Programmer, scientist, & now armchair psychiatrist? You?re a walking hat rack.
You?re a little more fun than the other creationist punching bags, truth be told.
I?ve told you this before. You?re my whetstone ? I hone my edge on you.
Wow, your self-awareness is practically nil, dude. The last several of our conversations, I?ve gone after your points only, & you immediately attack me on a personal level. It?s public record, don?t bother denying it. It?s really hypocritical of you to start a fight & then criticize the opponent for responding in kind. Doesn?t your book of fables have some sort of injunction against that? Oh. Yes it does.
I?ve got no questions for you. You don?t seem to realize ? most of these folks here are trying to use the Socratic method. The bulk of these queries are to make you think, or face up to your relusion. Nobody here (that I know of) is asking you because they?re curious, nor are they ?lost souls?. You?re not the dean here ? you?re just another joker in a long line of jesters, that amuse & titillate the Round Table here. Sadly, you think you?re a king ? you?ve worn that mask too long.
Ciao, Giacomo.
Oh yeah, I’ll take option C:
The specific function or end being to survive.
Hmm. In its third week of release Stein’s movie dropped another 51% in grosses and was dumped from almost 40% of the screens that were showing it. Not too good, Ben.
KnowledgeIsPower:
Sorry for the delay in responding.
In a loose sense I suppose, but I would say that that just pushes the scope of the intelligent agent back to the nature of matter itself.
An excellent point?one I obviously overlooked. So, given the common definitions of the word, ?intelligence? is unambiguously inferred, therefore it is, strictly speaking, unnecessary.
In my opinion, no. That would defy the common definition(s) of design.
Yes.
Yes, otherwise they couldn?t be properly considered ?plans.?
I wasn?t asking to prove a negative. We know that intelligence can produce a design to store and retrieve information?that is easily proved?yet it is categorically (and illogically) rejected by materialist simply because they refuse to acknowledge its other implications.
A reorganization. The only intrinsic ?information? found in ice crystals is the geometry of the water molecule?which is simply repeated?so it really isn?t information at all; it?s just a characteristic of the molecule.
You didn?t object to M-W?s online definition when I posted it before:
Do you disagree with it now?
Yes, and there seems to be an argument for rudimentary intelligence there too:
http://tinyurl.com/5oxc8v
Ok How ?bout the existence of this blog??it?s axiomatic that you guys are the source of intelligence here; and you?ve certainly created a wealth of information for anyone fluent in the English language to use.
alatham:
Sure. On second thought, perhaps I painted with a broader brush than I should have. I retract that statement.
But that?s the extent of my retraction. Atheism, in my opinion, unequivocally, is a belief system. To think that one can not choose a side of an issue, is in fact, making a choice in the matter?you?re simply choosing not to choose. You may describe your adherence to atheism as disbelief in theism, but the source of that disbelief is itself a belief in the veracity of atheism.
Not so. I believe I just made such a concession.
None. But hey, it?s been my experience that the vast majority of those who call themselves atheists around here can state that, ?there is no God? in no uncertain terms and without hesitation?and that, I believe, is consistent with the dictionary definition of the word.